In the video, he says the british government (US lackey) officials approached him to participate in the overthrow of the assad government because of his firm stance against israel. In fact, at the end he says "those who do not cooperate with israel, will have to be crushed".

Surely he was told never to say a word, but obviously given his age may well have slipped out of his mouth.

Sorry, I haven't formulated a theory yet, but give me some time.
The key elements will be the NSA (duh!), the Triliteral Commissariat (note: NOT the trilateral commission), the alleged flatness of iOS 7, and a donkey.

- syrian national council is established calling for more arming of the FSA (which is a loose term that was applied to the now classified terrorist al nusra front at first)

- obama/cameron/hollande call for the immediate resignation of Assad, stalling and neglecting any politcal solution and conference UNTIL Assad actually resigns, which is counter productive and therefore curious behind what their motivations really are.

- videos emerge of rebels with foreign accents, chenchen and saudi namely, chopping people's heads off, commiting suicide bombings and cutting out their hearts and eating them while crying out 'allah akbar'

- in spite of fears we're backing lunatics, US and france claim sarin gas was used by the government with no visible proof even though signs suggest it is in fact rebels that have exercised the use of chemical weapons. They broker with the UK for lifting the arms embargo imposed by the EU, at a time where Assad forces are said to be making huge advances against foreign mercenaries.

Overall.... More than questionable this whole fiasco. All i know is 90,000 + people are dead, and the west and has a lot of explaining to do

At the risk of sounding stupid on this subject, I heard an interesting comment on MSNBC last night. It was Russia's view that in Syria it is not about democracy and freedom, but it is a power struggle where jihadists are fighting a dictator.

At the risk of sounding stupid on this subject, I heard an interesting comment on MSNBC last night. It was Russia's view that in Syria it is not about democracy and freedom, but it is a power struggle where jihadists are fighting a dictator.

So who should we root for? And should the West be getting involved?

Click to expand...

We'll end involved no matter who wins. Perhaps making deals while the fighting is going on is the solution.

It's hugely flattering to think that the French are convinced that the British political establishment is at the centre of a secret Anglo Saxon plan to reshape the world but... come on... at the moment we don't seem to be capable running an education policy, a tax policy, a health policy etc etc

Why would our policy on Syria be the exception to all this and be clear, logical, consistent and most importantly work? After all all our recent foreign jollies in the Middle East have all been rip-roaring successes and have demonstrated the clear sighted machiavellian intelligence of our political classes.

(For those not in the UK the skinhead below is William Hague - our chap running the foreign office.)

It's hugely flattering to think that the French are convinced that the British political establishment is at the centre of a secret Anglo Saxon plan to reshape the world but... come on... at the moment we don't seem to be capable running an education policy, a tax policy, a health policy etc etc

At the risk of sounding stupid on this subject, I heard an interesting comment on MSNBC last night. It was Russia's view that in Syria it is not about democracy and freedom, but it is a power struggle where jihadists are fighting a dictator.

So who should we root for? And should the West be getting involved?

Click to expand...

I think originally it was about the Syrian people pushing for democracy and more freedom, but now the revolution has been mostly hijacked by the Jihadists. If the west wanted to get involved they should have done do at the beginning and put in a no fly zone like in Libya. We failed to do that so now we should stay out of it, Assad is a horrible person, but a lot of the extremists who have taken over the revolution are just as bad or possibly worse in some ways so we shouldn't really be arming them either. Leave it up to the other Arab nations to get involved if they want, but the west should stay out of it.

Daraa is just off the border with Jordan, so for there to be a training camp around the area speaks for itself really. Makes sense of course, the Saudi's unleashing their takfiri animals from their prisons which then pass through jordan accompanied with Qatari arms no less. The other point of entrance is obviously the northern border with turkey with videos out there of Chechen fighters and arrests of militants caught with sarin gas.

Have to say, the west really couldn't have planned this atrocity any better. Why risk the backlash of an iraq when you could just as easily rely on foreign mercenaries and proxies to do the dirty work for you of getting rid of someone who opposes the apartheid state of israel? Zero accountability, zero need for troops on the ground. If anyone recalls the US funding of the contras in Nicaragua and more recently the mujahideen in the 90's and of course libya i think it's a bit naive not to think the same thing is happening again.

Of course, don't expect the lame-stream media to relay the video above nor the revelations made by the french minister

It's become that obvious I don't even think it's worth debating. We should have faith in what this foreign minister said as he knows the ins and outs of IR, as he is a credible source.

Click to expand...

So blind faith? Because it's "obvious" and "not worth debating"?

Well, obviously, Obama is a fascist and everything he does is bad for the country...just look at how ugly iOS7 is! It's so obvious that he's trying to make American companies fail that it's not worth debating. If you don't believe me, you're just wrong.

Yeah... a little ironic considering that in some of your posts, you criticized people who watch/listen to "lame-stream media" and believe everything they say.

Have to say, the west really couldn't have planned this atrocity any better. Why risk the backlash of an iraq when you could just as easily rely on foreign mercenaries and proxies to do the dirty work for you of getting rid of someone who opposes the apartheid state of israel?

Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that the Israeli's are going to prefer having a broken, fractured country full of hardline Islamic factions and imported islamic warriors armed to the teeth (with stuff like nerve gas) to the previous containable regime who dealt in realpolitik? If we were truly plotting on behalf of Israel I would suggest we'd be better off taking Putin's line.

A far simpler explanation (and they often work the best) is that our current batch of politicians watched their then political bosses argue, fiddle and prevaricate while the Balkans burnt. I think they feel that Europe (the US seems an unwilling partner) should step up and 'needs to do something'. The problem is what? They're desperately looking for a big 'fix-it' lever to pull or failing that some slightly less psychotic Mullahs to back.

The problem is though that we're blundering into a brewing religious and sectarian war fermented by the islamic schism between Sunni and Shia. If we get involved we'll have to pick a long term side just as the rest of the Middle East is doing.

As stated before you are quoting a guy who has been out of active politics since 1999 and last served as Foreign Minister in 1993. I highly doubt that he would be approached about something like that since he had no authority to be of any help. Sounds more like the ramblings of an old man.

Ahh and after googling I now remember why that name sounded so familiar, he was one of the principal political crooks in the Elf Aquitaine scandal....

Click to expand...

His words are corroborated by the facts on the ground and recent history. Interesting to note 2 cabinet ministers in the socialist government have accepted to being zionists and eternally linked to israel.

Yeah... a little ironic considering that in some of your posts, you criticized people who watch/listen to "lame-stream media" and believe everything they say.

Click to expand...

No, i never said i believe what the mainstream media display. Unless you think the minister is working for a media outlet i'd be happy for you to confirm such a statement, otherwise your post makes no sense.

The facts on the ground are that rebels are heavily armed, trained and presented as being mutinied syrian fighters when in fact their foreigners by and large.

Do you honestly think that the Israeli's are going to prefer having a broken, fractured country full of hardline Islamic factions and imported islamic warriors armed to the teeth (with stuff like nerve gas) to the previous containable regime who dealt in realpolitik? If we were truly plotting on behalf of Israel I would suggest we'd be better off taking Putin's line.

A far simpler explanation (and they often work the best) is that our current batch of politicians watched their then political bosses argue, fiddle and prevaricate while the Balkans burnt. I think they feel that Europe (the US seems an unwilling partner) should step up and 'needs to do something'. The problem is what? They're desperately looking for a big 'fix-it' lever to pull or failing that some slightly less psychotic Mullahs to back.

The problem is though that we're blundering into a brewing religious and sectarian war fermented by the islamic schism between Sunni and Shia. If we get involved we'll have to pick a long term side just as the rest of the Middle East is doing.

Click to expand...

Absolutely they'd prefer a broken islamic syria to bashar al assad. Hostilities with Assad stem from the fact that he's been arming Hezbollah in Lebanon which impacts directly on the zionist regime. Iran and syria are threats to israel, it is by no means coincidental the calls for his immediate resignation and unfounded assertions of iranian WMD's. The so called 'red-line' and fear goes all the way back to bush in 2006, but still nothing to substantiate their claims.

Simple explanations in IR have always shown to be the worst explanations. Why did europe prevaricate over the Balkans? Let's see, an area where there are no resources and no strategic political importance to any western power or israel. If we were to make a list of all nato/west interventions since the 1960's, you'll find that the majority of countries involved are either resource rich or not aligned with US policy. Rwanda and the the former yugoslavia were exceptions, guided by a moral compass, despite the west actually failing on both occasions to stop the genocidal conflict earlier. Human rights? Apparently not.

So where does syria stand in all of this? Simple, You have foreign militias and al Qaeda offshoots the british and americans with all their intelligence have refused to acknowledge until this year, presumably because they hoped bashar would bend over relatively quickly which has not been the case. Why are they still insisting on arming the 'rebels' when its adding fuel to the fire by prolonging conflict while recognising the existence of head chopping terrorists?

The Syrian National Council, an entity brought about by the US that would break all ties with iran and Hezbollah if Assad were to go.

The simple truth is that the people of the Middle East (including Israeli's) need no encouragement or help from the US - or any other country - to commit atrocities against each other. Westerners are not shelling & rocketing towns and cities indiscriminately, Westerners are not roaming around in militias that execute unarmed people, and Westerners do not stand accused of using Sarin. We might be accused of being complacent in these atrocities, but I believe they would happen anyway. All that is required is extreme religion plus a history of tribal warfare. Even the poorest in the Middle East seemed to be armed to the teeth....

The simple truth is that the people of the Middle East (including Israeli's) need no encouragement or help from the US - or any other country - to commit atrocities against each other. Westerners are not shelling & rocketing towns and cities indiscriminately, Westerners are not roaming around in militias that execute unarmed people, and Westerners do not stand accused of using Sarin. We might be accused of being complacent in these atrocities, but I believe they would happen anyway. All that is required is extreme religion plus a history of tribal warfare. Even the poorest in the Middle East seemed to be armed to the teeth....

Click to expand...

There is no way the Saudi's would send over takifiri fighters, or Qatari's shipping military armaments to Syria without some form of incentive. The West are the reason behind the vast majority of ethnic conflicts whether that be in the middle east or Africa.

The borders of African countries that were drawn i think in the early 90's by europeans caused havoc in the Congo and elsewhere. I don't think it can be emphasised enough how determining borders is a major cause of internal conflict.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.